Joe -:- Erika Andersen Really Filters Me -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 13:49:26 (EST)

__ Cynthia -:- *****YET ANOTHER BEST OF***** -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 18:39:47 (EST)

__ __ Joe -:- Thanks, Cynthis and a belated happy birthday (nt) -:- Thurs, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:54:24 (EST)

__ Rebbe Shmebbe -:- Re: Erika Andersen Really Filters Me -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 17:36:21 (EST)

__ __ Yeshiva bocho -:- Joe chutzpah IS chutzpah -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 19:16:54 (EST)

__ __ Joe -:- Thanks, but I looked it up -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 17:46:06 (EST)

__ Deborah -:- Did you send Erika this one? -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 15:25:12 (EST)

__ __ Joe -:- Yes, and thanks. -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 15:46:48 (EST)

__ __ __ JHB -:- Re: Yes, and thanks. -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 19:26:51 (EST)

__ Jim -:- Know what really bugs me? -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 14:20:12 (EST)

__ __ Joe -:- Re: Know what really bugs me??? -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 16:55:14 (EST)

__ Zelda -:- Erikas Fallicies of Distraction Index -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 14:19:40 (EST)

__ __ Deborah -:- What a tour de force -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 15:21:38 (EST)

__ __ __ Zelda -:- Re: What a tour de force -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 16:03:50 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Stonor -:- They've been trained by a 'Master'! :) -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 20:02:05 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Auntie Eureeka -:- Erika's evil twin -:- Thurs, Nov 15, 2001 at 10:25:15 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Auntie Eureeka you are priceless!!! -:- Thurs, Nov 15, 2001 at 20:03:59 (EST)

Jim -:- New from Erika: 'Filtering out the Good' -:- Tues, Nov 13, 2001 at 23:12:00 (EST)

__ Loaf -:- **GREAT POST JIM ** (NT) -:- Thurs, Nov 15, 2001 at 08:01:28 (EST)

__ Jerry Manderingh -:- FILTER THIS -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:01:09 (EST)

__ __ JHB -:- Land Acquisition Projects - Tell us more! -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:14:28 (EST)

__ __ __ Jerry Manderingh -:- Re: Land Acquisition Projects - Tell us more! -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 15:05:27 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Tonette -:- Everything he touches turns to SHIT! -:- Thurs, Nov 15, 2001 at 00:04:31 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: Everything he touches turns to SHIT! -:- Thurs, Nov 15, 2001 at 04:48:57 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- Forgive you? Why............ -:- Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 01:52:31 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- One day......maybe -:- Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 04:48:58 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- That makes me blush. What a nice thing to say -:- Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 00:06:49 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Deborah -:- That makes me feel sad -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 15:47:06 (EST)

__ gerry -:- ****BEST OF**** -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 10:29:21 (EST)

__ Patrick Wilson -:- Re: New from Erika: 'Filtering out the Good' -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 06:54:06 (EST)

__ Pat:C) -:- Shooting fish in a barrel -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 04:16:45 (EST)

__ Vicki -:- Re: New from Erika: 'Filtering out the Good' -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 01:25:39 (EST)

__ __ Chuck S. -:- She should try not filtering out INFORMATION... -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 05:32:18 (EST)

__ __ __ gerry -:- sheeesh another ****BEST**** -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 10:36:51 (EST)

__ bill -:- Jim, Erica's 'true' example is a lie. -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 00:58:52 (EST)

__ __ Deborah -:- That's what I thought -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 16:12:46 (EST)

__ __ bill -:- Write her Jim [nt] -:- Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 01:01:06 (EST)

 

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 13:49:26 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: kevjo@mindspring.com
To: All
Subject: Erika Andersen Really Filters Me
Message:

Jim has an excellent analysis of Erika's latest missive, and sorry if this repeats some things, but I couldn't help it. Here it is:

ERIKA, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FILTERING ME

Erika Andersen has a new article on her website entitled Filtering out the Good (November 11, 2001). It is very much in line with the themes of most of the other things she has written, namely, that those “critics” of Maharaji are focusing on “selected information,” only presenting part of the story, or giving false information about Maharaji. Why do they do this? Well, Erika usually says it’s because there is something wrong with them. In earlier articles she said that they criticize Maharaji’s obscene wealth because they are filled with jealousy, in another, she says they criticize Maharaji’s ashrams because they were too spiritually immature and moved in for the wrong reasons. In this article, her theory is that it’s because they have a “filter” in their brains.

Erika says that critics of Maharaji have a “he’s-a-jerk-and-a-cult-leader filter” in their heads and hence can see Maharaji only negatively. Erika never addresses what might cause someone to get such an infirmity, but she says the “filter” causes these critics to come across as “rote, predictable and often self-righteous.” But as is the pattern in her other articles, Erika never gets around to addressing, or responding to, any allegations that ex-followers have actually made about Maharaji, as opposed to those Erika fabricates herself. (See especially, her article Myth Buster, dated August 8, 2001 and my response thereto for examples of Erika’s propensity to make things up). Because she will not deal with those specific allegations, predictably, she is left with only the route of attacking the people who make those “predictable and often self-righteous” criticisms. And this she does.

That one could turn her hypocritically “self-righteous” lecture on this subject back on Erika seems to have eluded her. It would be quite logical to suggest that followers of Maharaji are typical of other cult members and have extremely skewed views of Maharaji because they “filter” out all negative information about their cult leader. Further, they then engage in “rote” responses like Erika does, with self-righteous put-downs of critics as having some sort of mental defect, like she also does. Isn’t it ironic?

One also gets the impression after reading a number of Erika’s articles that she is talking to children and not teenagers either, but really young children, like seven-year-olds. She usually presents some simplistic metaphor or illustration, like comparing her marriage to the evolution of Maharaji, comparing the ashram to a tropical plant, comparing the critics’ one-sided views of Maharaji to views of her daughter as a truant and a thief, and so on.

In this article, the simplistic metaphor involves a fictional business executive named “John” whom Erika is distressed to note “thinks that most of the other senior people in his company are idiots.” Because “John” steadfastly holds on to this viewpoint, Erika says he “filters” good things that those other people might do. Similarly, and I’m sure you can see this coming, Erika says that Maharaji’s critics do the same thing; they take all information about Maharaji and view it through their pre-conceived “filter,” not only failing to see the positive, but also twisting it into the worst possible light.

What Erika never asks is why does “John” think those associates are “idiots?” Did “ John” just make that up for no reason? Is “John” just mean, vindictive and wicked? Could it possibly be that John’s associates really are idiots? In any case, isn’t it very important to ask what interactions or experiences caused “John” to have that viewpoint, since it’s logically unlikely that he just pulled it out of thin air?

Maybe they walk into walls, or repeatedly stick their fingers into the electric pencil sharpeners, or are just very incompetent in their jobs. The point is, there are experiences “John” has had with these people that have made him have the opinions he does. Avoiding a close examination of their validity and getting to the bottom of whether they are indicative of the kind of co-workers “John” actually has, would not seem to help the situation. Just telling “John” that he has a “pre-conceived” viewpoint and to get rid of it, without analyzing whether the viewpoint is valid, would seem to be a major waste of time. Despite this obvious flaw, Erika uses this same intellectual fallacy when she talks about Maharaji’s critics. So, we get no analysis of why they think the way they do about Maharaji, just that the way they think about him is very messed up.

But regarding “John,” one would also think that continued and repeated evidence of the competency of his co-workers would likely turn him around, either showing that he was wrong, or that his co-workers had changed. On the other hand, if such evidence does not arise, maybe “John” is right after all. A person does not just start out with a “pre-conceived” point of view. It takes a lot of evidence and experiences to “conceive” the viewpoint. Presumably, “John” has had a lot of experiences with his co-workers, just like ex-followers of Maharaji have had lots of experience interacting with, and observing, Maharaji, some for as many as 25 or more years.

In fact, the only situation in which overwhelming contrary information does not have this effect is, well, in cults. That’s because people in cults do what Erika Andersen does, they engage in mind control. They generalize, obfuscate, attack the person providing the contrary information, deflect, and to every extent possible, protect the cult leader from criticism, even if it means blaming themselves. Under no circumstances do they analyze the validity of the criticisms of the cult-leader that the ex-followers have.

So, Erika tells us that for some unstated reason some former followers of Maharaji have developed this “filter.” The more “antagonistic” these opponents of Maharaji are, Erika diagnoses, the more they have such a “filter” (an “impermeable set of negative assumptions” no less), and the less they are able to see Maharaji clearly. She provides two examples of this phenomenon.

Example Number One: Erika says that the critics with these filters” would view the fact that Maharaji hasn’t been involved with her website, as evidence that he is “a jerk and a cult leader” for being so “heartless.” If he were involved with the site they would say he was “a jerk and a cult leader” for using the site to his own advantage. According to Erika, poor Maharaji is “damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t” by such filter-infested people.

Not to be as dramatic as Erika, but this is insane. I don’t think critics of Maharaji care whether Maharaji has commented on Erika’s website, and I haven’t seen any comments, even on the Forum, one way or the other. It’s kind of a non-issue. It certainly isn’t something that’s on the high priority of criticisms of Maharaji. One thing I will say is that I would bet hard-earned money that if Maharaji didn’t want her website up, or wanted it changed, it would be gone or changed, no doubt about it. He wouldn’t need to make a public statement either. Just a communication over “first class” or through the proper communication channels and it would be done.

Similarly, if Maharaji wanted the CAC and the other websites that members of his cult have set up to criminally attack his “critics” to be gone, they would be as well. There have been seven separate websites so far; one website remains as of the date of this writing. That site accuses me and others of committing felonies, and it includes the names of our employers. We have heard nothing whatsoever from Maharaji about this. What are we to conclude?

I think there are three possibilities: 1) He doesn’t know about them; 2) He doesn’t care one way or the other about them; or 3) He approves of them. Since I find item “1” utterly implausible, that leaves the other two, either of which reflects very negatively on Maharaji. Is this just my filter working, making it impossible for me to see the positive side of Maharaji’s inaction or tacit approval of those attack websites, or is this a legitimate conclusion? What do you think Erika? More importanly, what would an “innocent bystander” think?

Erika’s Example Number Two: Maharaji has made some changes in how he presents himself since the 70s (like closing the ashrams, dropping “Guru,” no longer wearing Krishna outfits and crowns, etc.). Erika thinks Maharaji made those changes for entirely positive and altruistic reasons -- so knowledge would be more available to people. But Erika laments that the “filter-critics” see those changes as “deception” and a way to “keep people under his control” and “to make money.”

Okay, fair enough, there are always two sides to any story. But we are talking about motivations and because of Maharaji’s failure to explain any of this we don’t know for sure. I tell my students that when they don’t know the full story about something they should focus on what you do know -- focus on the evidence that is available. Anyone who does that will see that it’s Erika who is doing the filtering, not Maharaji’s critics.

For example, we have the testimony of at least two former high-level people who were assistants to Maharaji at the time he closed ashrams saying that he did so for financial reasons, because the ashram premies were getting older and were more a liability than an asset. Maybe they were also an obstacle to propagation, and that was a reason as well. But Erika doesn’t seem to grasp that by “filtering” out the evidence of the other motivations, it makes it impossible for her to see why in relation to the ashrams, people criticize Maharaji as being uncaring towards his followers. Obviously, people who do not think Maharaji is worthy of being their master do not think there should still be ashrams. No, the “critics” do not criticize Maharaji for closing the ashrams; it was his motivations for doing so, and the uncaring way he did it, especially in light of how he browbeat us for years prior into being terrified of ever leaving the ashram, that is the criticism.

What about getting rid of the Hindu trappings, and how the “filter-critics” view that as “cynical?” I don’t consider those changes cynical as much as I consider them superficial, because I don’t think all that much has changed. Darshan and ARTI are still happening. I watched a video of Long Beach 1997 and watched Daya and the Pwks sing “please, please, please teach me devotion” to Maharaji as he sat on stage, and how Maharaji is “pure and his love is deeper than the ocean,” etc. I saw the Pwks go ape-shit when he got up and danced just like in the bad old 70s. And I can see how some would find it cynical when Maharaji, Elan Vital and Erika make it sound like those changes were deep and profound. “Devotion” is now “gratitude.” “Service” is now “participation,” “Word Technique” is now “Technique Number 3.” So what? The basic belief system of the cult is just as intact as it was in 1973, just with some new buzzwords. Yes, the ashrams are closed and that is a positive change, because it means fewer people can be exploited and abused in that forlorn institution.

Most critics of Maharaji don’t really care that he made those changes. The criticism is that Maharaji has never taken the responsibility that one would think a “master” should, to explain, counsel, admit errors and address the real human damage he caused. Instead, he ignores, covers-up, blames others, and lies. For example, for years Maharaji claimed to be the incarnation of God, as can be substantiated in numerous quotes, and now he lies and claims he never did it.

Maharaji and Elan Vital must have the world’s worst PR people, because on the Elan Vital website there is an actual video clip of Maharaji in which he outright lies about this. The text on the Elan Vital website is also a lie. This isn’t about changing Hindu trappings. It’s very basic. It’s that Maharaji seems to have a real problem with telling the truth. A lie is a lie and no “filters” can change that one way or the other. This, in addition to his incapability of admitting he has ever committed errors, much less taking responsibility for such errors, or doing anything to correct the damage they caused, is dispositive in my view of his ever being my master. Of course, this would be important information for any “innocent bystander” also to know, and they are unlikely to get it from either Maharaji or Erika. Thank God for the critics.

To be fair, maybe partly because of our criticism, Erika courageously tries in her article to make a lunge towards a very tiny criticism of Maharaji. One can almost see Erika’s teeth clench as she says the following:

Has he made mistakes along the way? From my point of view, yes. There have been dead ends, changes that were confusing, swings of the pendulum that went too far in one direction or another. From what I can see, he has had a tendency to shift gears without acknowledging how his 'shifting' might affect those trying to keep up with him.

Close, but you just can’t quite do it, can you Erika? As is typical of Erika and other cult members, if anything even slightly verges on the teeniest criticism of Maharaji, out comes the passive voice. While Erika says Maharaji “made mistakes,” one waits in vain to hear what they are. Rather, she says, “there have been dead ends,” and also “changes that were confusing” and there were “swings of the pendulum”. These things, mild and forgivable though they may be, just sort of “happened” and weren’t really Maharaji’s fault. Hence, Maharaji should never have to talk about them, or take responsibility for them, even if, as is the case, real people were damaged in the process.

But wait. As we read on, it appears we might get an actual criticism of Maharaji out of Erika. Can it be? Erika says that Maharaji has a tendency to “shift gears” (one’s heart begins to beat faster. Will Erika actually criticize Maharaji? Oh my God. A real live cult member, criticizing the cult leader? That hasn’t happened yet!). But our hopes are dashed. Erika concludes that the problem wasn’t really Maharaji, it was that his followers couldn’t “keep up with him.” Oy Vey. I give up. Oh, and Erika, for your convenience, the above is about the best example of a “rote and predictable” statement as I have ever seen.

What is the point of all this? Erika says she is concerned about all those filter-impaired critics of Maharaji, not really for herself, or for Maharaji, but because it gives those “innocent bystanders” an unbalanced view:

If someone is interested in Maharaji and Knowledge, listening only to people who see through such negative filters isn't going to give a balanced view. I would suggest listening to what Maharaji has to say about Knowledge and the Master, and to people who have been benefiting from what he's shown them. Most important, I'd suggest applying one's own filters not those that filter out the good, but those that let it through...

A balanced view? Give me a break. If it weren’t for those “critics” all those innocent bystanders could find out about Maharaji is the propaganda he, his websites, and Erika’s website puts out. One of the main reasons the “critics” are speaking out on the Internet is because there is nothing approaching a “balanced view’” of Maharaji on the cult websites, in his videos, or in the Visions publications.

While admittedly not “balanced,” the critics’ websites serve the function of giving the other side of the story, because, let’s face it, Please Consider This, Visions, Elan Vital and Enjoyinglife are completely censored websites, that do not even admit contrary views. I have submitted a number of dissenting views to Erika herself and she is batting 1000 in censoring every one of them from her supposed “balanced” website. The same is true of Enjoyinglife (see the great “Nigel caper” on EPO for a description of the massive censorship that goes on at that particular cult site).

On the other hand, the ex-premie sites allow anyone, including Erika herself and her brother, both of whom have done so, to come forward and present opposing views, and counteract those awful filters. So, for Erika to self-righteously lecture us on our supposed “rote” and “predictable” explanations, when she, on her own website censors off anything she doesn’t agree with, gives new meaning to the word “chutzpah.”

Joe Whalen
November 13, 2001

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 18:39:47 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: *****YET ANOTHER BEST OF*****
Message:

Joe,

You are outdoing yourself! I love the way you and Jim are taking that website apart. It's wonderful writing and such a pleasure to read.

OK. Enough smoke blowing b)

This in particular pisses me off about that site and Erika's writing...you wrote:

One also gets the impression after reading a number of Erika’s articles that she is talking to children and not teenagers either, but really young children, like seven-year-olds. She usually presents some simplistic metaphor or illustration, like comparing her marriage to the evolution of Maharaji, comparing the ashram to a tropical plant, comparing the critics’ one-sided views of Maharaji to views of her daughter as a truant and a thief, and so on.

It's quite demeaning to exes or anyone for her to be so simplistic.

It occurred to me when you mentioned the bit about Erika talking to children that Maharaji speaks that way. And he always referred to us as his children, or would say ''come as a child.''

So here's this big fat guru with so much self-made power, and what does he do? He sends out his children to do his dirty work for him. All fail in their attempts at damage control.

The ''Master'' who can show people 'that' place inside and bring peace to the world and is so unreachable and unavailable to his premies, hides behind them like a sorry-ass criminal who would hold up a child as a shield.

That's what pisses me off about Maharaji. He has no courage. He's a coward. It amazes me over and over how narcissistic Maharaji really is.

Thanks, Joe--keep 'em coming!

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:54:24 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Thanks, Cynthis and a belated happy birthday (nt)
Message:

Hope you had a great birthday, Cynthia.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 17:36:21 (EST)
From: Rebbe Shmebbe
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Erika Andersen Really Filters Me
Message:

Sharp as a tack Joe, and searingly accurate. You're no mishugganah, only one inaccuracy - pls change spelling of the last word to 'chutzpah'.

Keep separating the wheat from the chaff and filtering the obvious from the odious,

Rebbe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 19:16:54 (EST)
From: Yeshiva bocho
Email: None
To: Rebbe Shmebbe
Subject: Joe chutzpah IS chutzpah
Message:

never mind the Rebbe, he's full of shmultz

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 17:46:06 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Rebbe Shmebbe
Subject: Thanks, but I looked it up
Message:

and found it spelled both ways. But as you appear to be the Yiddish expert, and I am as goy as they come, I will defer to you. Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 15:25:12 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Did you send Erika this one?
Message:

Hi Joe,

I hope you are sending her copies of all these PCT analogy/rebuttals. They are very astute.

You should definitely have your section in the EPO annals. More people involved in the cult are coming around and this stuff should be readily available.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 15:46:48 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Yes, and thanks.
Message:

Think she will post it? :) I think John is putting together a bunch of the responses to the PCT website, somewhere on EPO. Right, John?

Actually, I think we should be thanking Erika and Co., for the grist they have provided, helping us get our views out there more effectively. It's been a great development in my opinion.

BTW John, do you want me to send you a word version of the above?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 19:26:51 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Yes, and thanks.
Message:

Yes I am! Honest! Currently struggling with indenting paragraphs, but I think I've now got this simple concept licked. Send me this post in Word please.

John

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 14:20:12 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Know what really bugs me?
Message:

Why do they only allow non-resident commentators a maximum of 100 words to say anything? It's almost as if they're holding their noses in fear that Janice might really let it rip and they'd have to post it all seeing as no one else is 'speaking up'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 16:55:14 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Know what really bugs me???
Message:

Did you notice they got a grand total of FOUR people to comment on why Maharaji isn't the leader of a cult, one of whom was the infamous Janice Wilson who wrote her response while sitting in the river of love? Kind of pathetic, really.

In addition to the responses to the articles, I submitted a 'speak up' response on the 'cult' issue, including the URLs of the then FOUR attack websites put up by premies, saying these were a very strong reason that Maharaji really is leading a cult. Somehow, that didn't get printed, but the response from Janice Wilson made the cut.

That Erika can think she can get away with calling that blatant censorship a 'balanced' presentation is astounding.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 14:19:40 (EST)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Erikas Fallicies of Distraction Index
Message:

premies seem to use a hybrid type of logic - a conglomorate of several on the list below-- sprinkled with the fairy dust of devotion and the might of 'nothing to do with me'

Fallacies of Distraction

* False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options
* From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false
* Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn
* Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition
Appeals to Motives in Place of Support

* Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force
* Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy
* Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences
* Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author
* Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true
Changing the Subject

* Attacking the Person:
* (1) the person's character is attacked
* (2) the person's circumstances are noted
* (3) the person does not practise what is preached
* Appeal to Authority:
* (1) the authority is not an expert in the field
* (2) experts in the field disagree
* (3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious
* Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named
* Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion
Inductive Fallacies

* Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population
* Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole
* False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar
* Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary
* Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration
Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms

* Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception
* Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply
Causal Fallacies

* Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other
* Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause
* Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect
* Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed
* Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect
Missing the Point

* Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises
* Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion
* Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument
Fallacies of Ambiguity

* Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings
* Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations
* Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says
Category Errors

* Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property
* Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property
Non Sequitur

* Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A
* Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B
* Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true
Syllogistic Errors

* Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms
* Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property
* Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the predicate
* Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject
* Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premises
* Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise: as the name implies
* Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises
Fallacies of Explanation

* Subverted Support (The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist)
* Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased)
* Untestability (The theory which explains cannot be tested)
* Limited Scope (The theory which explains can only explain one thing)
* Limited Depth (The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes)
Fallacies of Definition

* Too Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included)
* Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which shouls be included)
* Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept being defined)
* Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition)
* Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 15:21:38 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: What a tour de force
Message:

Jeepers Creepers Zeld, I didn't realize that bullshitting through your teeth could be explained this thoroughly. Damn good post.

You don't think she knows this stuff, do you? Nahhhh!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 16:03:50 (EST)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Re: What a tour de force
Message:

Hi Deborah
Spooky isnt it-and that is just the definitions. I think each one has a example ect with it.
I looked up 'Logical Fallacies'- I think it has popped up on the forum before.
it is a great reference tool for teachers.

I think dem premies think thats the way it is supposed to be because if you nail them on one they just switch to another.

Z

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 20:02:05 (EST)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: They've been trained by a 'Master'! :)
Message:

Hi Zelda,

I've cut and pasted this for future reference! Thanks!

Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 15, 2001 at 10:25:15 (EST)
From: Auntie Eureeka
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Erika's evil twin
Message:

You people are just hateful, making fun of my poor sister Erika, after she tries so hard to honestly share the innermost feelings from her heart of hearts. You have no idea what agony she goes through, sitting at her $5,000 laptop pc, delicately sipping latte from her Master's insignia teacup on the way to another client meeting. These clients are too intrusive upon her precious time, so she must overcharge them with outrageous fees, making them think they are getting their money's worth of corporate BS.

Her true calling in life, of course, is to tell the world of hateful ex-premies and loving pwk premies, the truth about not being in a cult, and how everything is beautiful in her perfectly perfect life.

You have no idea the pressure I, as Auntie Eureeka, am under to maintain a glazed smile at all times when in the presence of my two, perfectly well behaved, above average niece and nephew. They are such wise and enlightened children, having grown up in the bliss of a premie family whose parent's marriage was sanctioned by the lord, err teacher, when the rest of the cult, err devotees, err students, were forbidden to commit holy premarital sex. They are simply adorable. I cry tears of pride when their friends point to MaHaRaJi's portraits, which grace every wall of their House Beautiful, asking who the man with the shiny face is? "An airline pilot," they reply in synchronization.

When Wadi, Daya, Hansi and Amar pull up in their Mercedes coups to take them out for a night on the town, underage though they might be, they always insist the Divine Children wear their seatbelts. They are responsible and will be a real asset in Elan Vital's servitude. Of course, they will not be mere unpaid slaves, they will be compensated handsomely for any and all services. Why, they may have their own restaurant; they do like to bake chocolate chip cookies. Oh darn, that might give Daya's Fine Dining competition. Between you and me....Daya's dessert menu could use a little updating.

But their true aim is for my little, sweet niece to be a stewardess on Challenger, Monica will be getting old and wrinkly any day, and my talented nephew to open a vegetarian South African restaurant in Malibu. We ate at a similar restaurant in San Francisco, California while enroute to Amaroo. The layover was too long for bright children to merely loiter around the terminal, eating greasy french fries. A good Auntie is always on the look out for healthy foods to feed her niece and nephew, and this restaurant was listed on the Best Vegetarian Restaurant guide. Mind you, they aren't vegetarian because their parent's Master insisted on it once upon a time. No, it was those ignorant Mahatmas (who we never leave the children unchaperoned around) that didn't realize 'Knowledge is not in the stomach'. And my sister does enjoy a juicey, raw steak when she's at Amaroo or chow down some barbecue during the Master's Large Contributor's barbecues at his private campground. Marolyn used to be right handy with the tongs but she let the last batch of babyback ribs char. She tried to tell MaHaRaJi it wasn't her fault, the security wouldn't let her enter the Big Contributors Only gate, but He was furious. Monica has the duty of basting and turning the ribs now, and dabbing the sweat off her Master's foreplay, oops typo, forehead.

My little nephew was instantly taken and he decided right then and there, that he too wanted to be a chef and open a bigger and better South African restaurant. That way his mummy and daddy can also enjoy these delicasies without fear of being recognized by hateful ex-premies. My sister and her husband can't go anywhere without being recognized and their autogragh clammored for, now that they are famous cult apologists. I told him if he continues to be a drug free, A plus student, I as his Auntie, will send him to the San Francisco Culinary Institute, where he can develope his craft and plagorize that quaint little restaurant's menu. It is a testiment to the superiority of our family gene pool that these children do not do drugs. They realize they must wait until they are at least sixteen until they start their schooling in illegal substances. I told them that it is indeed an arduous, extracurricular task, but necessary for their future status in the Rawat chldren's social circle.

That's all for now, but never fear, Auntie Eureeka is hard at work on her annual Christmas holiday letter, where all the great accomplishments of my sister and her perfect family will be bragged upon for everyone's reading pleasure. I know all of you wish you could live such priveleged lives, but that's not possible, so you will just have to make do living vicariously Erika's life through her wonderful website and my lovely letters.

Love and kisses to all-Auntie E.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 15, 2001 at 20:03:59 (EST)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Auntie Eureeka
Subject: Auntie Eureeka you are priceless!!!
Message:

I mean ... inspired!

'I cry tears of pride when their friends point to MaHaRaJi's portraits, which grace every wall of their House Beautiful, asking who the man with the shiny face is? 'An airline pilot,' they reply in synchronization.'

I really was laughing out loud!

But there's a strange sub-plot in there, and I'm afraid I'll just have to warn Chuck and Pat about your nephew, so they'll keep their eyes peeled for menu and recipe thieves!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

 

Date: Tues, Nov 13, 2001 at 23:12:00 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: New from Erika: 'Filtering out the Good'
Message:

Erika's latest 'article' on PCT is:

Filtering Out the Good

Recently, I've been coaching an executive let's call him 'John,' though that's not his name who thinks that most of the other senior people in his company are idiots. I don't believe it's true, and I'm trying to help him see that holding on to this belief isn't in his own (or the company's) best interests. It's difficult, though: John believes his conclusion so deeply that everything his peers do passes through his 'they're idiots' filter and comes out looking of course like idiocy.

I'm convinced. I, too, need a former PAM (sorry Mike) to help me and my colleagues think better. Is there a word for comedy paralysis when no single joke surfaces because there are just too, too many? There should be.

Here's an example: a woman who works for this executive and whose intelligence he respects recently co-wrote a report with one of the 'idiots' and gave it to him. As John picked up the report, he asked her who had written it. She mentioned the other guy's name, and before she could mention that she had worked on it, too, John began looking through it, saying things like: 'Well, this isn't true,' and 'when will this guy learn to do research?,' etc. When he got to the last page and saw her name on the document, John got embarrassed for a moment...but then he just applied his 'idiot filter' once again. 'Of course,' he added, 'this guy's such an idiot that he probably didn't pay any attention to your suggestions.' The woman was too embarrassed to tell John that she'd researched and written the bulk of the report.

My point is this: people are often so committed to a point of view about someone else that they filter everything that person does or says through a pre-existing belief system...and voila! their conclusion supports what they already believe. I see some of Maharaji's more antagonistic critics doing this with regard to him.

Again my jaw drops. It's Joe Anctil time, Erika! Remember, you point a finger at someone else .... or was that Rajeshwar or someone? Anyway, this is perversely rich. The premies say we exes are too fixed in our views to see Maharaji clearly and we say just the opposite, that they are. But it's hardly a Mexican standoff. Exes are willing to discuss the facts, great and small. We're willing to present our 'case', such as it is, to any impartial arbiters. Hell, we'll even talk with partial ones, for that matter. We're definitely willing to debate these contrasting views with premies. And, of course, we'd take up these issues with Maharaji or his organization as well as evidenced by the countless efforts made over time to engage them, any of them, in honest dialogue. Premies, on the other hand, balk at all of it. Theirs is an extremely closed system and that's how they like it. I just can't believe Erika could set herself up for such well-deserved scorn and ridicule like this. Oh well.

For example, if I were to say that Maharaji has had nothing to do with this site (which is true), many of his critics would accuse him of being cold, distant and uninterested in his students. 'Those poor deluded people,' they might say, 'have put tremendous time and effort into this site and he doesn't even give them the courtesy of talking to them about it? What a jerk.' On the other hand, if Maharaji had been deeply involved in the site, those same people would probably say something like, 'Those poor deluded people have put tremendous time and effort into this site and he's only interested in having everything his own way; he's a megalomaniac and a cult leader. What a jerk.'

This insipid straw man argument could fool no one. No, Erika, it's more like this. You say Maharaji had nothing to do with your website and many of us won't believe you, plain and simple. Why? We've got our reasons. But even if you're right, the most important criticism exes would levy against Maharaji is none less than pointing out how cowardly he is having people like you fight his battles for him. Look, it's fun hashing things out with premies -- I guess -- but YOU WEREN'T MY GURU! Why should you guys be the front line in Maharaji's defence? Is that why they call him 'The Speaker'? Can't he talk for himself? Where is he? Why does he leave it to you to second guess and half-heartedly speculate about his thoughts and agenda when he could deal with these matters, not to mention his former 'lovers', so much more directly? That's the criticism, Erika, not that he's a control freak. We already know that. But what you're doing with your cult apologist site that is too lame for prime time and too skittish for the real world is just a big embarrassment for all of us. THAT's the criticism.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

I find this 'he's a jerk and a cult leader' filter especially evident when Maharaji's detractors talk about how he's changed the way he describes himself and his role since coming to the west in the early 70s.

From my perspective, it looks like Maharaji has done whatever he considered necessary to remove the barriers preventing people from hearing about Knowledge. This included many things: coming to the West, on his own, at the age of thirteen; changing the way he described himself and Knowledge to fit in more with Western culture; and dissolving the ashrams in the West so they wouldn't be more of a hindrance than a help. Perhaps most dramatically, his efforts have included disentangling Knowledge, the Master, and the relationship of Master and student from the Indian culture that surrounded it.

Yes, and what about the big, pink elephant sitting in the centre of your sentence? What about the entire notion of 'The Master' itself? Or is that a taboo subject that can't even be acknowledged quite yet? Is that something today's premies will have to deal with twenty years on? When they finally tire of the deception and turn back to bite the hand that's been pretending to feed them all along, will Maharaji then deny that he set himself out as 'The Master'? Who'll be the scapegoat then, I wonder. Who?

Anyway, her entire revisionism is worthless. We all know the truth. No wonder they've shut themselves up in their own website with, of course, their anti-anti-Maharaji filters firmly in place.

Has he made mistakes along the way? From my point of view, yes. There have been dead ends, changes that were confusing, swings of the pendulum that went too far in one direction or another. From what I can see, he has had a tendency to shift gears without acknowledging how his 'shifting' might affect those trying to keep up with him.

Careful, Erika! You know and I know that this tepid criticism of Maharaji can only go so far. My read on the situation is that Maharaji must condone at least some nominal criticism by premies seeing as we exes have made such an issue of its absence vis-a-vis all the most important criteria on everyone's favorite cult checklists. You just have to be able to criticize your leader a bit. If you can't, you just may be in a cult.

So this is what premies come up with. A brief, vague comment that The Master may, just possibly may, move a little fast for us ordinary folk once in a while. Sigh -- and he meant so well too, didn't he? He has SO much to accomplish in SUCH little time. But still, even he, in all his wisdom, in all his mercy, has to remember that the rest of us are only human, eh?

Try getting Erika to spell this out, though, and she'll get nervous. Ask her to say it directly to his face and you'll find yourself on the wrong side of a one-way website like PleaseConsiderThis.com.

But far more important than that to me is the fact that he has made the effort to challenge the status quo (even his own status quo) and continually refine the way he communicates the value of Knowledge. Starting as a very young teen-ager, he has worked tirelessly to sort out what is true and important about Knowledge, master and student, and to express it in a way that is timeless, free of religious overtones, and beyond any specific culture or country. I see the transition he has made as an amazing achievement: as a result of this effort, people in almost every country are now able to hear about Knowledge in a way they can understand, without seeing it as an 'Indian thing.'

I always get stuck on the strict return to premie fundamentalism in late '76 through '80, when I hear this nonsense. Tell me, Erika, about Kissimee. Tell me, please, about the ashram satsangs. Tell me something honest for a change. Free from whatever family influence you might ever think Maharaji laboured under, he, and he alone, ushered in, not a thousand years of peace but a few years of heavy, heavy religiosity designed to break the back of any nascent confidence and free-thinking in his cult. No, he's not responsible for that just like Mao wasn't responsible for the Cultural Revolution. Tell me about it.

What happens when you put this evolution through the 'he's a jerk and a cult leader' filter? The changes he's made are dismissed as 'deception.' If his critics assume that Maharaji's goal is to be the leader of a cult, then they will assume he has made these changes only for the purpose of making money and keeping people under his control. But ask yourself the converse. What if Maharaji had kept everything the same as when he first came to the West? Then his detractors would complain that he really IS a classic Indian-based, Hindu cult leader...trying to make money and keep people under his control.

False dichotomy. If Maharaji had stayed the course with the hoary old Hindu garbage, he would have likely exhausted his welcome here around the time the Nehru jacket did. But he didn't and thus his duplicity is evidenced in the path he did take. His real problem is that, sooner or later, premies were going to take a fresh look at the premises they'd accepted on joining the cult. He's made things a bit easier by playing around with some of those premises himself. But it's all a poker game to him. He plays being Mr. No Concept so we end up buying without question the concepts he really can't afford to see threatened. Like 'The Master' one.

And if Maharaji told everybody in the West, 'Look, the reason I stopped saying all those things about 'Guru being greater than God' is because I realized it didn't mean to you what it meant in India. In India, that sort of statement is a culturally acceptable way of acknowledging the preciousness of the Master's gift that God may be the source of all joy, but Guru reveals that joy within the devotee. People in the West thought I was just on an ego trip when I said that. It wasn't helping anybody understand the importance of Knowledge; so I stopped.' How would Maharaji's critics respond if he said that? I suspect it would be you guessed it 'he's a jerk and a cult leader, so of course he's going to make up some reasonable-sounding rationale...after all, he just wants to make money and keep people under his control.'

No one outside your cult, Erika, would EVER buy this gross patent insult of an entire subcontinent. AS IF they don't understand the meaning of words. AS IF they don't fathom the significance of someone publically proclaiming themselves to be the greatest incarnation of God to ever trod the planet. This is gross. Gross, gross, gross.

At this point, I'm pretty sure that no matter what Maharaji says or does, his most devoted critics will find a way to position it as he-just-wants-to-make-money-and-keep-people-under-his-control. Hey, Maharaji could end the war with Afghanistan, stop world hunger and find a cure for cancer and I bet his critics would position it as the ultimate scheme for raking in the dough and controlling everybody.

Interesting thought experiment there, I must admit. What IF Maharaji really did all those wonderful things? Well, if he did them all on a Tuesday I think I'd be quickly reconsidering the terms of my disengagement. It'd get ME thinking, I'm sure of it. But, fact is, Maharaji's doing none of any of that. Yes, he promised to feed and shelter the world but now he's just flying around collecting money. So it's a bit hard to say how I'd react if he ever did anything worthwhile. I sure wouldn't concede he 'Masterness' without some solid evidence in that respect. Should I?

When people filter their perceptions of someone through an impermeable set of negative assumptions, they lose their ability to see that person clearly. Their reactions and explanations become rote, predictable and often self-righteous. If someone is interested in Maharaji and Knowledge, listening only to people who see through such negative filters isn't going to give a balanced view. I would suggest listening to what Maharaji has to say about Knowledge and the Master, and to people who have been benefiting from what he's shown them. Most important, I'd suggest applying one's own filters not those that filter out the good, but those that let it through: is Knowledge something you want and need? Does it feel right to you?

And I'd suggest demanding some honest adult dialogue with the man you're about to call your Master for who knows how long. In that dialogue, I'd suggest that you ask him whatever the hell you want and listen closely to his answers. If any answer fails to impress, keep going. Beforehand, read through EPO. By all means, read PCT as well and anything else the guru throws at you -- oh sorry, I forgot. PCT has nothing to do with him. Beware of filters for sure. Filters and snow jobs.

Back to 'John,' the executive at the beginning of this article. From what I can tell, he's starting to understand that seeing his peers through an 'idiot filter' is a sure way to keep from recognizing any value they may have to offer. I'm very interested in finding out what he discovers when he takes off the filter.

Erika Andersen
November 11, 2001

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 15, 2001 at 08:01:28 (EST)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: **GREAT POST JIM ** (NT)
Message:

oh and I can just about read yes.

Sorry. I leapt in. I have been a bit over-sensitive about the right to maintain fuzzy logic whilst exiting.

Sorry Jim

Loafie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:01:09 (EST)
From: Jerry Manderingh
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: FILTER THIS
Message:

Excellent points Jim. What bothered me the most was not just what was done by m but how things were done by him. Apart from spiritual discourse and dispense of the proprietary knowledge techniques, it was the 'practical' interactions with the man that provided the measure of who and what he was all about.

For instance, margie spared no effort to convince us that we should make great personal sacrifices to serve him but when the winds of change starting blowing in different directions what did Rear Admiral Rat tell the deckhands? Did he inform them of the impending flatulence, or that some of them were to be unceremoniously shat upon? No responsibility, no accountability, no love, just a lot of hot air.

For many of us 'deckhands' involved in various of his grand schemes and projects be they ashrams, plane projects, land acquisition and development, initiators/knowledge facilitators, etc., m's obvious lack of care regarding our welfare were the first 'drips', the first cracks in his carefully constructed foundation. While most of us performed all manner of mental gymnastics to excuse m for his errors in judgement, advice, lack of compassion, we could not ignore the knot in the pit of our stomachs - where was m? Unfortunately, according to those around him at the time, he was partying, living the high life in style - cars, cognac, steros and stilettos.

Instead of explanations and accountability - some fashion of responsibility what did the good servants get? PR campaigns to 'de-mystify' the emporerer now that he stood without clothes before the deckhands. The captain is human after all, but don't expect humility, don't expect contrition, and don't expect an answer.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:14:28 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jerry Manderingh
Subject: Land Acquisition Projects - Tell us more!
Message:

Please!

Apart from the place in Argentina and Amaroo, were there other land acquisition projects, and what went wrong with them?

Thanks,

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 15:05:27 (EST)
From: Jerry Manderingh
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: Land Acquisition Projects - Tell us more!
Message:

Please!

Apart from the place in Argentina and Amaroo, were there other land acquisition projects, and what went wrong with them?

Thanks,

John.


---

Yes, I was referring to the fact that premies in S.A. had done a fair bit of fixing up of the Tierra del amour site in Argentina before m decided to either sell it or not use it - I'm not sure which. Before amaroo this was going to be his garden of eden for programs. I'm sure margie felt no obligation to speak about his change of plans for all those who put in the hard work, er, service.

At this stage, I will admit that it is hearsay, but apparently amaroo is in financial difficulty, if it does go down then no doubt all the good folk who did the hard physical labour readying the land and facilities will be the last to know.

When margie was carrying on the major expansion/renovation of his residence in Malibu, scores of premies worked for free on the major project - some coming from foreign countries - most having to find their own accomodation, food, general living expenses. One poor guy I know from Canada worked there for several months and not once did margie come round to say hello or anything. For this guy, if margie had only done that, said hello, he would have been blissed to cloud nine - certainly that would have sufficed for all his trouble, but like I say, nothing. Unfortunately he is such a cult zombie he undoubtedly has rationalized the experience as a spiritual lesson. Something like not needing margie to acknowledge his effort in order to have the experience of service or some such foolishness. Just another example of margie's uncaring, patrician, caste system.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 15, 2001 at 00:04:31 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Jerry Manderingh
Subject: Everything he touches turns to SHIT!
Message:

God dammit. No matter the attention and work and money and planning and love that is put into any of his major 'projects' they always turn to shit. Or, rather, he turns them into shit.

Take the plane for instance. He considered that shit and sold it.
Amaroo, and all involvement there, that's turning to shit.

I hope he has leaky plumbing in his new mansion in Malibu.

Our hearts, we let him play with us, he turned that into shit as well.
Certainly not the Midas touch I would say.

Maharaji and EV monitors, are you ever going to say anything? There's more of us ex's it seems than there are premies now. Maybe you can win us back. Hardeharharhar.

Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 15, 2001 at 04:48:57 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Re: Everything he touches turns to SHIT!
Message:

I just wrote something similar to Gail above. BTW that new thread at the top was spam and I deleted it along with your post about it being spam. I'm sure you'll forgive me. ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 01:52:31 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Forgive you? Why............
Message:

I absolutely adore you so what's to forgive! You're cool Pat and do alot of work for this forum, I love you for that and the fact that, well, you're cool.

Love, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 04:48:58 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: One day......maybe
Message:

....we'll meet. I was just saying to Chuck today that I think you are so down to earth and sensible. You know I think that already. He agreed with me. Seems like he also reads all your posts.

One day I'll take your hand in friendship.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 00:06:49 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: That makes me blush. What a nice thing to say
Message:

My posts are so superficial compared to what is really happening on this forum. It's knda embarrasing to think that other people read my posts but I guess they do. Better not let myself think too much about that or I will chicken out.

Someday I do hope we meet. I'll take your hand also in warm friendship.

Fondly, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 15:47:06 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Jerry Manderingh
Subject: That makes me feel sad
Message:

This is the stuff that hits home for me.

One poor guy I know from Canada worked there for several months and not once did margie come round to say hello or anything. For this guy, if margie had only done that, said hello, he would have been blissed to cloud nine - certainly that would have sufficed for all his trouble, but like I say, nothing.

and alas! this is even sadder

Unfortunately he is such a cult zombie he undoubtedly has rationalized the experience as a spiritual lesson

Maha, you are an incredibly selfish egotistic worthless piece of shit!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 10:29:21 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: ****BEST OF****
Message:

Erika's latest 'article' on PCT is:

Filtering Out the Good

Recently, I've been coaching an executive let's call him 'John,' though that's not his name who thinks that most of the other senior people in his company are idiots. I don't believe it's true, and I'm trying to help him see that holding on to this belief isn't in his own (or the company's) best interests. It's difficult, though: John believes his conclusion so deeply that everything his peers do passes through his 'they're idiots' filter and comes out looking of course like idiocy.

I'm convinced. I, too, need a former PAM (sorry Mike) to help me and my colleagues think better. Is there a word for comedy paralysis when no single joke surfaces because there are just too, too many? There should be.

Here's an example: a woman who works for this executive and whose intelligence he respects recently co-wrote a report with one of the 'idiots' and gave it to him. As John picked up the report, he asked her who had written it. She mentioned the other guy's name, and before she could mention that she had worked on it, too, John began looking through it, saying things like: 'Well, this isn't true,' and 'when will this guy learn to do research?,' etc. When he got to the last page and saw her name on the document, John got embarrassed for a moment...but then he just applied his 'idiot filter' once again. 'Of course,' he added, 'this guy's such an idiot that he probably didn't pay any attention to your suggestions.' The woman was too embarrassed to tell John that she'd researched and written the bulk of the report.

My point is this: people are often so committed to a point of view about someone else that they filter everything that person does or says through a pre-existing belief system...and voila! their conclusion supports what they already believe. I see some of Maharaji's more antagonistic critics doing this with regard to him.

Again my jaw drops. It's Joe Anctil time, Erika! Remember, you point a finger at someone else .... or was that Rajeshwar or someone? Anyway, this is perversely rich. The premies say we exes are too fixed in our views to see Maharaji clearly and we say just the opposite, that they are. But it's hardly a Mexican standoff. Exes are willing to discuss the facts, great and small. We're willing to present our 'case', such as it is, to any impartial arbiters. Hell, we'll even talk with partial ones, for that matter. We're definitely willing to debate these contrasting views with premies. And, of course, we'd take up these issues with Maharaji or his organization as well as evidenced by the countless efforts made over time to engage them, any of them, in honest dialogue. Premies, on the other hand, balk at all of it. Theirs is an extremely closed system and that's how they like it. I just can't believe Erika could set herself up for such well-deserved scorn and ridicule like this. Oh well.

For example, if I were to say that Maharaji has had nothing to do with this site (which is true), many of his critics would accuse him of being cold, distant and uninterested in his students. 'Those poor deluded people,' they might say, 'have put tremendous time and effort into this site and he doesn't even give them the courtesy of talking to them about it? What a jerk.' On the other hand, if Maharaji had been deeply involved in the site, those same people would probably say something like, 'Those poor deluded people have put tremendous time and effort into this site and he's only interested in having everything his own way; he's a megalomaniac and a cult leader. What a jerk.'

This insipid straw man argument could fool no one. No, Erika, it's more like this. You say Maharaji had nothing to do with your website and many of us won't believe you, plain and simple. Why? We've got our reasons. But even if you're right, the most important criticism exes would levy against Maharaji is none less than pointing out how cowardly he is having people like you fight his battles for him. Look, it's fun hashing things out with premies -- I guess -- but YOU WEREN'T MY GURU! Why should you guys be the front line in Maharaji's defence? Is that why they call him 'The Speaker'? Can't he talk for himself? Where is he? Why does he leave it to you to second guess and half-heartedly speculate about his thoughts and agenda when he could deal with these matters, not to mention his former 'lovers', so much more directly? That's the criticism, Erika, not that he's a control freak. We already know that. But what you're doing with your cult apologist site that is too lame for prime time and too skittish for the real world is just a big embarrassment for all of us. THAT's the criticism.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

I find this 'he's a jerk and a cult leader' filter especially evident when Maharaji's detractors talk about how he's changed the way he describes himself and his role since coming to the west in the early 70s.

From my perspective, it looks like Maharaji has done whatever he considered necessary to remove the barriers preventing people from hearing about Knowledge. This included many things: coming to the West, on his own, at the age of thirteen; changing the way he described himself and Knowledge to fit in more with Western culture; and dissolving the ashrams in the West so they wouldn't be more of a hindrance than a help. Perhaps most dramatically, his efforts have included disentangling Knowledge, the Master, and the relationship of Master and student from the Indian culture that surrounded it.

Yes, and what about the big, pink elephant sitting in the centre of your sentence? What about the entire notion of 'The Master' itself? Or is that a taboo subject that can't even be acknowledged quite yet? Is that something today's premies will have to deal with twenty years on? When they finally tire of the deception and turn back to bite the hand that's been pretending to feed them all along, will Maharaji then deny that he set himself out as 'The Master'? Who'll be the scapegoat then, I wonder. Who?

Anyway, her entire revisionism is worthless. We all know the truth. No wonder they've shut themselves up in their own website with, of course, their anti-anti-Maharaji filters firmly in place.

Has he made mistakes along the way? From my point of view, yes. There have been dead ends, changes that were confusing, swings of the pendulum that went too far in one direction or another. From what I can see, he has had a tendency to shift gears without acknowledging how his 'shifting' might affect those trying to keep up with him.

Careful, Erika! You know and I know that this tepid criticism of Maharaji can only go so far. My read on the situation is that Maharaji must condone at least some nominal criticism by premies seeing as we exes have made such an issue of its absence vis-a-vis all the most important criteria on everyone's favorite cult checklists. You just have to be able to criticize your leader a bit. If you can't, you just may be in a cult.

So this is what premies come up with. A brief, vague comment that The Master may, just possibly may, move a little fast for us ordinary folk once in a while. Sigh -- and he meant so well too, didn't he? He has SO much to accomplish in SUCH little time. But still, even he, in all his wisdom, in all his mercy, has to remember that the rest of us are only human, eh?

Try getting Erika to spell this out, though, and she'll get nervous. Ask her to say it directly to his face and you'll find yourself on the wrong side of a one-way website like PleaseConsiderThis.com.

But far more important than that to me is the fact that he has made the effort to challenge the status quo (even his own status quo) and continually refine the way he communicates the value of Knowledge. Starting as a very young teen-ager, he has worked tirelessly to sort out what is true and important about Knowledge, master and student, and to express it in a way that is timeless, free of religious overtones, and beyond any specific culture or country. I see the transition he has made as an amazing achievement: as a result of this effort, people in almost every country are now able to hear about Knowledge in a way they can understand, without seeing it as an 'Indian thing.'

I always get stuck on the strict return to premie fundamentalism in late '76 through '80, when I hear this nonsense. Tell me, Erika, about Kissimee. Tell me, please, about the ashram satsangs. Tell me something honest for a change. Free from whatever family influence you might ever think Maharaji laboured under, he, and he alone, ushered in, not a thousand years of peace but a few years of heavy, heavy religiosity designed to break the back of any nascent confidence and free-thinking in his cult. No, he's not responsible for that just like Mao wasn't responsible for the Cultural Revolution. Tell me about it.

What happens when you put this evolution through the 'he's a jerk and a cult leader' filter? The changes he's made are dismissed as 'deception.' If his critics assume that Maharaji's goal is to be the leader of a cult, then they will assume he has made these changes only for the purpose of making money and keeping people under his control. But ask yourself the converse. What if Maharaji had kept everything the same as when he first came to the West? Then his detractors would complain that he really IS a classic Indian-based, Hindu cult leader...trying to make money and keep people under his control.

False dichotomy. If Maharaji had stayed the course with the hoary old Hindu garbage, he would have likely exhausted his welcome here around the time the Nehru jacket did. But he didn't and thus his duplicity is evidenced in the path he did take. His real problem is that, sooner or later, premies were going to take a fresh look at the premises they'd accepted on joining the cult. He's made things a bit easier by playing around with some of those premises himself. But it's all a poker game to him. He plays being Mr. No Concept so we end up buying without question the concepts he really can't afford to see threatened. Like 'The Master' one.

And if Maharaji told everybody in the West, 'Look, the reason I stopped saying all those things about 'Guru being greater than God' is because I realized it didn't mean to you what it meant in India. In India, that sort of statement is a culturally acceptable way of acknowledging the preciousness of the Master's gift that God may be the source of all joy, but Guru reveals that joy within the devotee. People in the West thought I was just on an ego trip when I said that. It wasn't helping anybody understand the importance of Knowledge; so I stopped.' How would Maharaji's critics respond if he said that? I suspect it would be you guessed it 'he's a jerk and a cult leader, so of course he's going to make up some reasonable-sounding rationale...after all, he just wants to make money and keep people under his control.'

No one outside your cult, Erika, would EVER buy this gross patent insult of an entire subcontinent. AS IF they don't understand the meaning of words. AS IF they don't fathom the significance of someone publically proclaiming themselves to be the greatest incarnation of God to ever trod the planet. This is gross. Gross, gross, gross.

At this point, I'm pretty sure that no matter what Maharaji says or does, his most devoted critics will find a way to position it as he-just-wants-to-make-money-and-keep-people-under-his-control. Hey, Maharaji could end the war with Afghanistan, stop world hunger and find a cure for cancer and I bet his critics would position it as the ultimate scheme for raking in the dough and controlling everybody.

Interesting thought experiment there, I must admit. What IF Maharaji really did all those wonderful things? Well, if he did them all on a Tuesday I think I'd be quickly reconsidering the terms of my disengagement. It'd get ME thinking, I'm sure of it. But, fact is, Maharaji's doing none of any of that. Yes, he promised to feed and shelter the world but now he's just flying around collecting money. So it's a bit hard to say how I'd react if he ever did anything worthwhile. I sure wouldn't concede he 'Masterness' without some solid evidence in that respect. Should I?

When people filter their perceptions of someone through an impermeable set of negative assumptions, they lose their ability to see that person clearly. Their reactions and explanations become rote, predictable and often self-righteous. If someone is interested in Maharaji and Knowledge, listening only to people who see through such negative filters isn't going to give a balanced view. I would suggest listening to what Maharaji has to say about Knowledge and the Master, and to people who have been benefiting from what he's shown them. Most important, I'd suggest applying one's own filters not those that filter out the good, but those that let it through: is Knowledge something you want and need? Does it feel right to you?

And I'd suggest demanding some honest adult dialogue with the man you're about to call your Master for who knows how long. In that dialogue, I'd suggest that you ask him whatever the hell you want and listen closely to his answers. If any answer fails to impress, keep going. Beforehand, read through EPO. By all means, read PCT as well and anything else the guru throws at you -- oh sorry, I forgot. PCT has nothing to do with him. Beware of filters for sure. Filters and snow jobs.

Back to 'John,' the executive at the beginning of this article. From what I can tell, he's starting to understand that seeing his peers through an 'idiot filter' is a sure way to keep from recognizing any value they may have to offer. I'm very interested in finding out what he discovers when he takes off the filter.

Erika Andersen
November 11, 2001


---

Great Post, Jim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 06:54:06 (EST)
From: Patrick Wilson
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: New from Erika: 'Filtering out the Good'
Message:

When people filter their perceptions of someone through an impermeable set of negative assumptions, they lose their ability to see that person clearly. Their reactions and explanations become rote, predictable and often self-righteous. If someone is interested in Maharaji and Knowledge, listening only to people who see through such negative filters isn't going to give a balanced view.

Neither, of course, is listening to people who see through such very 'positive' filters as Erika going to give a balanced view. Surely people who are interested in Maharaji and knowledge are not going to only 'listen to people who see through such negative filters' if they've got any sense.

Surely what people really deserve, if they are indeed to have a balanced viewpoint, are facts not opinions. At the end of the day the biased viewpoints of people who are for or against are not really enough to establish a true picture.

It is interesting that Erika's site is pre-occupied with promulgating only the positive viewpoints of premie contributors and not really any facts that would be considered news. I mean the positive facts about M and K are well known already.

EPO, on the other hand, has published a few startling new facts - via Dettmers and the rest - which were hitherto really unknown to the world.

The interest and controversy that these bits of information have stirred up makes Erika's efforts to bend over backwards being positive, seem just a little inneffective - even desperately futile if they are supposed to be an attempt at countering the allegations. Of course she's welcome to set the record straight - but anything less than directly denying or explaining the actual allegations frankly will not do for people who are struggling to make sense of how trustworthy a Master can be who is alleged to behave in unsavoury (un-Savioury?) and duplicitous ways that are kept secret.

One thing which I confess that Maharaji has achieved is to inspire incredible loyalty from people like Erica - which is franky a little worrying. As we can see from history repeating itself today, unfortunately people who trust so sincerely and trustingly in a person, or a cause, are often the last to see that their leader is corrupt or leading them up the creek without a paddle.

No, I think what should happen is that Maharaji should publically admit his affairs, the 'killing the cyclist' etc. and the alcoholism - or publicly deny it. This is the ONLY course of action, in my opinion, that offers Maharaji any means to ressurect the credibility that he has already lost due to these allegations.

Yesterday an aspiring Scottish politician sensibly gave an elaborate public confession of his past extra-marital affair so that he could pre-empt any future criticism for having had skeletons in his cupboard which would otherwise undoubtedly have threatened the prominent career he hoped for. It clearly behoves those in positions of public responsibilty or who seek the trust of others (as Maharaji arguably is because of the powerful trust dynamic between premie and Master) to be upfront and confess their sins if they have any. The fact that such people have the guts to be publicly remorseful goes a long way to letting them off the hook. (even if they are insincere - funnily enough).

Maharaji has yet failed to do this and so it is likely that he will be judged more harshly for trying to trying to keep embarrasments secret for as long as he can.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 04:16:45 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Shooting fish in a barrel
Message:

I'm sorry I can't join in, Jim. I don't have the stomach for shooting fish in a barrel. Like you, I wonder why nice PWKs are doing all the talking for Rawat. It just doesn't seem fair. They're such sitting ducks. Poor Erika - an E for effort.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 01:25:39 (EST)
From: Vicki
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: New from Erika: 'Filtering out the Good'
Message:

I'm glad I'm not Erika's twin any longer. The filter she keeps pontificating about should be reversed. She's the one with the rose colored filter.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 05:32:18 (EST)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: Vicki
Subject: She should try not filtering out INFORMATION...
Message:

Erika could try opeing both her left eye and her right, and having a good look at EVERYTHING. Filters are for fishtanks and tap water, not information. Unless you are a propagandist.

For two years while reading information on EPO, I kept making excuses for the Goober, trying to accentuate the positive. Eventually I got tired trying ONLY to see the good in M., and trying to ignore or excuse or explain away the bad. Why should I have to filter ANY information about M? In fact, during those two years, M would sometimes make vague references to his ''critics'', saying it was all a misunderstanding. I waited for him to explain. I thought there MUST be explanations, so I tried very hard to see the good, and waited for him to explain. I waited and waited, in vain. All's we get is the ''leave no room for doubt in your mind'' and ''never doubt the purity of the Master'' schtick. Very self-serving.

That's the big difference between the premie apologists and the ex-premies. We ARE willing to hear Maharaji state his side of things. He CAN post on this forum. He can post on my website, or EPO, or his website, anywhere. We are all willing to let him explain to us what we have misunderstood. But he says nothing, and his apologists make excuses for him, but they don't want to talk about it, either. We provide links to the premie forum (which was started by an expremie, for premies), we provide links to premie websites, they never link to ours. M's anonymous thugs, the CAC attackers, are trying to silence us. Someone is definitely filtering something, and it's not the ex-premies.

When, as a premie, I finally decided not to be afraid to just look honesty at what I was involved with, and to look at everything, information from as many sources as possible, and to consider and scrutinize it all, WITHOUT FILTERING ANYTHING out, good or bad, I was finally able to see the larger, complete picture, and I had to ask myself honestly, what was I getting out of it all, and if there was anything good, how much did it really have to do with the Goober? Was he really supplying anything that couldn't be gotten elsewhere? How happy could I be when I was involved with something that could only be considered a good thing if I never doubted or questioned it? If it couldn't hold up to scrutiny, then how good was it, how true was it? Why does anything true need to be protected from scrutiny? It doesn't.

Erika, why should anyone have to sacrifice honesty in order to be happy? What kind of person would ask you to do that? Oh, but you don't want to talk about it. It's no wonder. It's a lot easier (and safer) to just make up objections we haven't made and argue against those, and ignore what we really say and refuse to talk to us. You just do your best to be a nice, presentable public face for the cult, while the anonymous thugs in your cult do everything they can to silence the ''ex-student's'' who just wish to use their right to free speech, and talk about their experiences and talk about the many things that were hidden from them.

Mabye you really are nice, Erika. Just remember that even really nice people can be duped into defending liars. I certainly was.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 10:36:51 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: sheeesh another ****BEST****
Message:

Erika could try opeing both her left eye and her right, and having a good look at EVERYTHING. Filters are for fishtanks and tap water, not information. Unless you are a propagandist.

For two years while reading information on EPO, I kept making excuses for the Goober, trying to accentuate the positive. Eventually I got tired trying ONLY to see the good in M., and trying to ignore or excuse or explain away the bad. Why should I have to filter ANY information about M? In fact, during those two years, M would sometimes make vague references to his ''critics'', saying it was all a misunderstanding. I waited for him to explain. I thought there MUST be explanations, so I tried very hard to see the good, and waited for him to explain. I waited and waited, in vain. All's we get is the ''leave no room for doubt in your mind'' and ''never doubt the purity of the Master'' schtick. Very self-serving.

That's the big difference between the premie apologists and the ex-premies. We ARE willing to hear Maharaji state his side of things. He CAN post on this forum. He can post on my website, or EPO, or his website, anywhere. We are all willing to let him explain to us what we have misunderstood. But he says nothing, and his apologists make excuses for him, but they don't want to talk about it, either. We provide links to the premie forum (which was started by an expremie, for premies), we provide links to premie websites, they never link to ours. M's anonymous thugs, the CAC attackers, are trying to silence us. Someone is definitely filtering something, and it's not the ex-premies.

When, as a premie, I finally decided not to be afraid to just look honesty at what I was involved with, and to look at everything, information from as many sources as possible, and to consider and scrutinize it all, WITHOUT FILTERING ANYTHING out, good or bad, I was finally able to see the larger, complete picture, and I had to ask myself honestly, what was I getting out of it all, and if there was anything good, how much did it really have to do with the Goober? Was he really supplying anything that couldn't be gotten elsewhere? How happy could I be when I was involved with something that could only be considered a good thing if I never doubted or questioned it? If it couldn't hold up to scrutiny, then how good was it, how true was it? Why does anything true need to be protected from scrutiny? It doesn't.

Erika, why should anyone have to sacrifice honesty in order to be happy? What kind of person would ask you to do that? Oh, but you don't want to talk about it. It's no wonder. It's a lot easier (and safer) to just make up objections we haven't made and argue against those, and ignore what we really say and refuse to talk to us. You just do your best to be a nice, presentable public face for the cult, while the anonymous thugs in your cult do everything they can to silence the ''ex-student's'' who just wish to use their right to free speech, and talk about their experiences and talk about the many things that were hidden from them.

Mabye you really are nice, Erika. Just remember that even really nice people can be duped into defending liars. I certainly was.


---

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 00:58:52 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, Erica's 'true' example is a lie.
Message:

Read it and see that there is no way Erica could find out all the details of this supposed TRUE story that happened to her present client.
'Here's an example: a woman who works for this executive and whose intelligence he respects recently co-wrote a report with one of the 'idiots' and gave it to him. As John picked up the report, he asked her who had written it. She mentioned the other guy's name, and before she could mention that she had worked on it, too, John began looking through it, saying things like: 'Well, this isn't true,' and 'when will this guy learn to do research?,' etc. When he got to the last page and saw her name on the document, John got embarrassed for a moment...but then he just applied his 'idiot filter' once again. 'Of course,' he added, 'this guy's such an idiot that he probably didn't pay any attention to your suggestions.' The woman was too embarrassed to tell John that she'd researched and written the bulk of the report.'

I have heard this story before. Slightly different.
But the magazine that told it didnt LIE and try to imply this was really happening to thier client and they were trying to enlighten HIM and also US.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 16:12:46 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: That's what I thought
Message:

The story doesn't ring true at all. She is not just a cliche spinning apologist. Apparently, she has to fabricate a story in order to make an apologist point.

Someone's NOT getting desperate.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 01:01:06 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Write her Jim [nt]
Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index